Cursor drafted three statements based on popular election themes identified in several opinion polls, choosing topics that clearly relate to TU/e. These were: housing, security, and government influence on research. With these statements in hand, Cursor took to the campus during Tuesday’s lunch break. Students and staff were invited to write on a Post-it whether they agreed or disagreed—and why. Cursor then discussed their views with them. How do these issues influence your vote?

The three statements were:

1. The government should be allowed to decide what counts as useful research: yes or no
2. TU/e research for defense: go for it or stay out of it
3. Housing allowance for student rooms: entitlement or luxury

Unrealistic pacifism

The statement about defense immediately catches the attention of student Siebren van der Werf. He is one hundred percent in favor of TU/e conducting research that benefits the Ministry of Defense. That’s hardly surprising—he is currently doing his graduation project there for the master’s program in Data Science & AI. “I can’t share any details, of course.” Van der Werf understands that people may want to live in a pacifist world, but he doesn’t think that’s realistic. “There will always be conflict. You’re naïve if you think Defense shouldn’t keep innovating. These innovations come from technical universities.”

He cites the U.S. operation against Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan in 2011 as an example. “They found him thanks to intelligence made possible by technological innovation. In fact, that operation probably saved lives, because the attack was more targeted.” Van der Werf follows politics closely and says he would never vote for a pacifist party.

Responsible security

Tessa*, a staff member at Control and Finance (C&F), also places a sticker under the defense statement. She believes the university can make “a valuable contribution” to defense-related research. “There’s a lot going on in the world right now. Security is becoming an increasingly important issue. But it should be done responsibly. The university must remain in control of what kind of research is carried out.” Other Post-its also emphasize the importance of maintaining the university’s independence in defense research.

Tessa certainly considers defense policy when choosing a party, though she hasn’t made up her mind yet. “I’ll do the voting guide again. The first time, I went through it rather quickly. Then I’ll read some party platforms. But it’s difficult—there’s just so much choice.”

Another TU/e individual has a slightly different perspective. This person writes: “It is disgraceful that young people are being pressured to support war. Our previous generations have already emphasized this in the past.”

Steering through subsidies

The statements Cursor presented do not determine staff member Nils van de Berg’s voting behavior. The mathematics PhD candidate does leave a note about government involvement in research, but his focus is more on climate and social inequality. “The government may steer with subsidies, but should not impose prohibitions or obligations,” he writes.

He plans to vote for a left-wing party and doesn’t focus specifically on student-related issues. “I think the government should look after people who are struggling. Students generally have it better than many other groups in society.”

Ethics

Student Puck Stassen takes her time considering whether the government should have a say in research directions. “The government sometimes thinks too short-term. I understand that research funding is currently going to Defense. That’s fine for now, as long as medical research isn’t cut too much. Medical research can take twenty to thirty years,” says Stassen, who is pursuing a master’s in Biomedical Engineering. In the field of ethics, the government should have a timely say in matters. “That way, no research will be initiated that is ethically irresponsible.”

Less individualism in society

Brecht van den Bosch (18), a first-year Biomedical Engineering student, posts a note under the housing allowance statement. She rents a room and says the money would really help her. She pays four hundred euros for ten square meters. “That would mean I could work less during exam week. Right now, that’s just not possible.”

This will be Van den Bosch’s first time voting, but she isn’t nervous. “I’ve read up and done the voting guide (Stemwijzer). I’m excited that I can go to the voting booth.” The hardening of society is her main motivation to vote. “I think it’s really important that we look out for everyone. We need to be a little less individualistic.”

Equal opportunities in education

According to staff member Marleen* (C&F), housing allowances could promote equal opportunities in education. “I think there are students who are excited about studying here but simply can’t afford it. Then they choose a different program closer to home. It creates a domino effect, where students make different choices. But your background or finances shouldn’t determine what you study.”

For Marleen, all major issues currently on the table—such as housing, asylum, and defense—play a role in her voting decision. She is not undecided. “I choose the party that’s the most stable, with the best story and the best chance of success. Then it doesn’t feel like a wasted vote.”

There are differing opinions on housing allowances for student rooms. The pros and cons are fairly evenly divided. “It distorts the market and is unfair to non-students,” one post-it reads. Above it hangs another: “Students keep getting more money. They don’t realize how much they already receive. Housing allowances have to come from somewhere.”

This article was translated using AI-assisted tools and reviewed by an editor.

*Surnames known to the editors